JOVANA
Library Glossary Getting Started Three Levels Fields How it works Mission
Join the mission
Back to the library
Mathematics 1829

On the Principles of Geometry

Nikolai Lobachevsky

Drop Euclid's parallel postulate, and a whole new geometry stands up — consistent, and curved.

Choose your version
In depth · the introduction

For 2,000 years one rule of geometry looked too obvious to question. Lobachevsky questioned it — and discovered a second geometry, just as logical as Euclid's, in which parallel lines behave nothing like you'd expect.

The big idea

Euclid built all of geometry on five starting rules. Four feel obvious. The fifth — about parallel lines — always felt clumsier, like something that ought to be provable from the others. For two millennia, the best mathematicians tried to prove it. They all failed.

Lobachevsky asked a daring question: what if the fifth rule is simply false? What if, through a point beside a line, you can draw not one parallel but many lines that never touch it? Instead of nonsense, out tumbled a complete, self-consistent geometry — one where triangles have less than 180°, where bigger triangles bend more, and where the rules of Euclid return only when the shapes are very small. Space, he realised, doesn't have to obey Euclid. There is more than one possible geometry, and which one the real world follows is a question for measurement, not for pure reason.

How it came about

Nikolai Lobachevsky spent almost his whole life at the University of Kazan, far from Europe's mathematical centres, where he rose to become rector. He first presented his strange geometry to the faculty in 1826, then published it in the local Kazan Messenger across 1829 and 1830 — in Russian, in an obscure journal. Almost no one read it, and those who did mostly scoffed.

He was not entirely alone. In Hungary, János Bolyai reached the very same geometry independently and published it in 1832. And the towering Carl Friedrich Gauss had worked out similar ideas in private years earlier — but, afraid of the controversy, never dared publish. So the credit is genuinely shared: Lobachevsky was first into print, Bolyai an independent co-discoverer, Gauss a silent forerunner. Recognition for Lobachevsky came mostly after his death.

Why it mattered

This broke a 2,000-year assumption: that Euclid's geometry was the one true geometry, baked into the universe. Once mathematicians saw that other consistent geometries exist, they were freed to invent and study any system that doesn't contradict itself — which is much of what modern mathematics does. And when Einstein later needed to describe gravity, the curved, non-Euclidean geometry that Lobachevsky helped open up was waiting, ready to become the shape of spacetime itself.

A way to picture it

Think of drawing on a flat sheet of paper versus drawing on the inside of a saddle or a ruffled lettuce leaf. On the flat sheet, Euclid rules: parallel lines stay the same distance apart forever. On the saddle's curving surface, lines that start out 'parallel' spread apart, and a triangle's corners add up to less than 180°. Lobachevsky's geometry is the geometry of that endlessly curving, saddle-like surface — perfectly logical, just not flat.

An interactive Poincaré disk model of Lobachevsky's plane: a straight line crosses a disk, with a point above it. Drag a slider to move the point farther from the line; two curved parallel lines fan out from the point and the angle of parallelism shrinks from 90 degrees toward 0 as the distance grows.

Where it sits

Lobachevsky's break opened a door. Through it walked Bernhard Riemann, who in 1854 generalised geometry to curved spaces of any dimension, and then Albert Einstein, whose general relativity makes the shape of spacetime the cause of gravity — the universe's geometry decided by what's in it. The leap from 'geometry is fixed and obvious' to 'geometry is one choice among many, to be tested against the world' starts here, with a provincial Russian professor daring to deny Euclid.

The original document
Original source text

The gap in the theory of parallels

N. I. Lobachevsky · Geometrical Researches on the Theory of Parallels (1840) · trans. G. B. Halsted, 1891 · Introduction
In geometry I find certain imperfections which I hold to be the reason why this science, apart from transition into analytics, can as yet make no advance from that state in which it has come to us from Euclid.
As belonging to these imperfections, I consider the obscurity in the fundamental concepts of the geometrical magnitudes and in the manner and method of representing the measuring of these magnitudes, and finally the momentous gap in the theory of parallels, to fill which all efforts of mathematicians have been so far in vain.

Cutting and not-cutting lines (§16)

§16 · The definition of parallelism
All straight lines which in a plane go out from a point can, with reference to a given straight line in the same plane, be divided into two classes — into cutting and not-cutting.
The boundary lines of the one and the other class of those lines will be called parallel to the given line.
The angle HAD between the parallel HA and the perpendicular AD is called the parallel angle (angle of parallelism), which we will here designate by Π(p) for AD = p.

How the parallel angle behaves (§23)

§23 · The parallel angle as a function of distance
… with the lessening of p the angle a, increases, while, for p = 0, it approaches the value ½π; with the growth of p the angle a decreases, while it continually approaches zero for p = ∞.
[ … ]

The equation of the angle (§36)

§36 · The defining relation
tan ½ Π(x) = e^{−x}
Here e may be any number whatever, which is greater than unity, since for the unit of x we are still free to choose. … If we make x negative, then Π(x) is obtuse, and the equation still holds.
[In §37, Lobachevsky shows that for very small figures these formulas pass over into the ordinary geometry of Euclid — so the imaginary geometry can differ from it only by amounts too small to measure.]

Sign-off

N. I. Lobachevsky · Imperial University of Kazan · first announced 1826, published 1829–1830